The Supreme Court Disrupting the Future

Redistricting and immigration are difficult and complex subjects and are easily and simply intertwined for one reason:  They relate directly to the power of the two political parties in the country since most HispanicLatinos vote Democratic.

Given the expanding number of HispanicLatinos in the nation relative to the rest of the population, any fair handling of redistricting going forward should favor HispanicLatinos and, therefore, Democrats.  And given that immigration is the lifeblood a country, any mishandling of it could be catastrophic for the long term.  That seems natural and reasonable enough, though the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to confirm the unfairness and outright hostility that state legislatures and other political entities are visiting upon their HispanicLatino populations.

In deciding to hear cases related to state-based immigration laws in Arizona and congressional redistricting in Texas and perhaps ruling adversely, the Supreme Court risks more than adjudicating disputes among parties.  The current Court has sought to change the relationship between state governments and the federal government to give more power to the states, and so the prospects for HispanicLatinos – and the nation in the end – are tenuous at best.

The Court is risking further damaging its integrity, already weakened after its preposterous decision in Bush v Gore that stopped the counting of ballots in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.  After setting itself on a course to hold back federal power, it cynically stepped into the power of a state to hold an election.  The Court’s aberrant decision set in motion the events that led in large part to the horrible state of affairs today, ushering in a Republican Administration that plunged the country into war and near financial ruin.  The Court’s decision on Bush has had – and is having – long and frightful consequences.

Beginning with the Arizona and Texas cases, the Court will begin facing cases as the HispanicLatino population continues to become a larger part of society.

Redistricting is and will always be a partisan affair – except when it deals with basic unfairness to a whole group of people.  More than the equilibrium of the law is at stake. Though many HispanicLatinos will not feel the consequences of unfair redistricting until months later, the cases before the Court are building ultimately to a volatile national moment.  It is not a stretch to suggest that more confrontational times loom, since the validity of the Constitution itself is in question as is the impartiality of the Court.

Even when Democrats have been in charge, HispanicLatinos have been shortchanged in redistricting, but that was done to protect the incumbency of presumed allies.  But that has changed, so that redistricting and immigration laws are aimed squarely at HispanicLatinos.  HispanicLatinos are being deprived of fair treatment in redistricting from Florida to California and everywhere on immigration.  The Court’s decisions on Arizona and Texas will go a long way to define how HispanicLatinos evolve politically and electorally.

The Court’s decision on redistricting easily could discount the population gains HispanicLatinos have made in Texas.  HispanicLatinos made up 65 percent of the total growth of the state’s population in the last decade, and are thus principally responsible for the state’s four new seats in Congress.  HispanicLatinos in Texas were demographically under-represented in Congress before the 2010 Census and would be less so after it.  It is hard to define fairness; it is a lot easier to see it.   Depending on how it is resolved, the Texas case will have national implications, giving license to others to minimize HispanicLatino political and social influence.

The Arizona immigration case is as critical.  Any decision that empowers local governments to target HispanicLatinos strikes at more than the Constitution.  It speaks to the dehumanizing of a nation whose societal values already place more importance on the short term over the long term.

If HispanicLatino leaders, such as they are, and national HispanicLatino organizations, such as they are, cannot mount effective counter strategies if the Court’s decisions are counterproductive to HispanicLatinos and the nation’s future, a new and more vocal leadership will be made necessary – and that leadership might well be more demonstrative than in the past and perhaps become violent, encouraged by the economic stresses the country is undergoing.

Feel free to forward these blogs that deal with business topics on Mondays, politics on Wednesdays and social and personal and professional development on Fridays.  Additional thoughts are published invariably on Tuesdays or Thursdays.